"Now, it cannot be stated that these instances are definitive proof, but at the same time, they counter the claims that Trump and Vance are basing claims on nothing at all."
. . ."We are in an era in which this country's legacy news media displays an abject lack of regard for their journalistic reputations. The current driving force in the press is to instantly oppose anything Donald Trump says and claim he has been proven wrong, even in the absence of proof. Over the past few weeks, this has been the prevailing narrative.
"Currently, the Springfield pets-being-eaten-by-immigrants imbroglio is the latest case the press is stumbling and fumbling over. Trump has been labeled as a racist and accused of fomenting intolerance over this “false” story, and it has even been cited as a possible inspiration for the latest assassination attempt on Trump. (Small matter that the attempted shooter is not Haitian, is not an immigrant, and did not hail from Springfield.) The press has been firm in its declaration that the story is disproven, including David Muir, who stated such a statement during the debate.
"Except…
"Gradually, and against the will of the media, details are seeping out of the area that something of this nature could be transpiring, or at the very least has been a concern for residents. What the press has failed to do is step back to take a breath and then consider for a moment just what might have been the source of such a story. If Trump is in fact making up the tale of devoured housepets, why would he concoct such a weird fable? Was there any basis at all for the claim from him, and his running mate J.D. Vance?
No comments:
Post a Comment